The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1887-06-07
REV. G.. w. BRIGGS.
He Handles Mills, Cochran and
Whisky Without G'Oves.

u. w. Brlggs pronlDltlon huuress'
The.speaker is editor of the Texas
Christian Advocate, n comparatively
young man and ono of the best ora
tors who has appeared SO far in the
prohibition compaign. The following
is brief synopsis of the speech:
The speaker never allowed the fact
that he was a citizen to lead him to
forget that he was preacher, and
hoped never to allow the fact that he
was preacher to cause him to forget
that he was also a citizen. Mills ap-
plauded the former times when preach
ers of the gospel did not dare TO let it
be known Of what political faith they
were. Such a state of society pro-
duces priestcraft. Ministers of the
gospel should be kept free to accom-
plish by straight forward, honest ways,
what DISTINGUISHED men are tempted
to accomplish by strategy and. intrigue.
His presence on the platform had en-
dorsement that even the opposition
would accept. The Catholic Church
had maxim, ait is unlawful to speak
against the church" The anii-prohi-
bitionists had devel ped maxim Of
this sort: at is unlawful TO speak
against Mr.. Jefferson" II Mr.. Jefler-
son were living he would introduce
the speaker. Mr.. Jefferson dead yet
speaks through his writings and in a
letter to Wondhoner had said the
minister of the gospel outside of the
pulpit has the right equally with every
other citizen to express his sentiments
by speaking or writing Oh law, mcdi-
cine, politics, etc.
The speaker belonged to n
class that had been bitterly abused in
this campaign but would not return
railingfor railing. He was there to
discuss the question on its merits.
The amendment does not prohibit
the manutactur and sale of intoxi-
eating liquors in Texas-it simply pro-
hirit the illegitimate uses of such mar
ufacture and sale. A similar law was
the statute condemning dealing in
cotton futures. The raising and selling
of cotton was not prohibited, but the
illegitimate and hurtiul uses of the
trade. So hero every use to which
whisky could be put was protected,
the abuse of it to the injury of the
Commonwealth was condemned. The
demand for this legislation grew out
of the enormous growth and hurtful
influence of the liquor traffic. 1t was
the richest, most powerful and most
aggressive branch of industry, and did
incalculable harm that none could
deny. Nobody defended it. Even
anti prohibitionists denounced saloons
bitterly. 1t was only question of
remedies. Several Texas statesmen
had suggested remedies. Mills would
be satisfied with high license, Throck-
morton said "prohibit treating"
Hogg said "take away the screens
and let no bar-keeper have light in
his house at night" The
last reminded the speaker of
the old Curfew law which Mr.. Mills
had denounced. By study of the
positive laws now in force it was
shown that these were not remedies,
never were remedies, never would be
remedies. The State never had but
one remedy, whether prohibiting Sun
day, election days, minors, ETC.. and
that was prohibition. But why put it
into the constitution? The speaker
then read the account of suit enter
cd by Julius Shuetze, of Austin,
against w. j. Lemp. of st. Louis, for
$500, which Lemp agreed to pay him
to lobby against the submission of the
amendment. The organization OF
liquor dealers throughout the country
to keep such legislation from the sta'-
ute book, and to defeat it after it was
there, was dwelt upon. 1t. was neces-
sary TO put it into the constitution in
order to get it out of the reach of
Lemp's money.
The objections of the OPPOSITION were
renewed. 1t was not opposed TO the